Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

theodp writes "With new bike sharing programs all the rage, spending tens of millions of dollars to make city streets more bike friendly with hundreds of miles of bike lanes has become a priority for bike-loving mayors like NYC's Michael Bloomberg and Chicago's Rahm Emanuel. 'You cannot be for a startup, high-tech economy and not be pro-bike,' claimed Emanuel, who credited bike-sharing and bike lanes for attracting Google and Motorola Mobility to downtown Chicago. Now, with huge bike-sharing contracts awarded and programs underway, the NY Times asks the big question, How Safe Is Cycling? Because bike accidents rarely make front page news and are likely to be dramatically underreported, it's hard to say, concludes the NYT's Gina Kolata. UCSF trauma surgeon Dr. Rochelle Dicker, who studied hospital and police records for 2,504 bicyclists treated at San Francisco General Hospital, told Kolata,'Lots of my colleagues do not want to ride after seeing these [city biking] injuries.' On the other hand, Andy Pruitt, the founder of the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine and an avid lifelong cyclist, said the dangers were overstated, noting he's only broken his collarbone twice and hip once in four decades of long-distance cycling. So, is cycling safe, especially in the city? And is it OK to follow Mayor Emanuel's lead and lose the helmet?"

It will show you every last *reported* injured biker. That's a very big and important distinction. Equally important is how many of those injuries were on public roads. Whether or not some kid on an off-road course injured himself is of little importance.

It will show you every last *reported* injured biker. That's a very big and important distinction. Equally important is how many of those injuries were on public roads. Whether or not some kid on an off-road course injured himself is of little importance.

Depends on how "off-road" is defined; I agree a cyclist crashing into a tree on a backwoods trail shouldn't be included in the figures, but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk? Technically 'off-road,' but still occurred in an urban setting next to the road, so it should be counted, just like if a car were to do the same thing.

Also, I don't see any reference to a percentage by volume - of course more people will be injured by cars, because there are significantly more cars on the road than bikes.

That's it—not the absolute number of injuries/fatalities, but the rate. It's very high, at least around my area, considering the relatively small number of cyclist miles ridden on roads. And while city traffic scares me and Pruitt's "only broken my collar bone twice" is nothing to brag about if it was due to a vehicle collision, around here most of the worst injuries and deaths occur on moderate-to-lightly traveled suburban and rural roads. I probably never hear about most moderate injuries, but the c

That's it—not the absolute number of injuries/fatalities, but the rate. It's very high, at least around my area, considering the relatively small number of cyclist miles ridden on roads.

But would the injury rate remain the same if the number of drivers was reduced and the number of bicyclists was increased? Does their rarity contribute to the lack of awareness that cars have for them? Would an increase in bicyclists help justify extra costs of building extra safety measures for bicyclists (suck as bike lanes, perhaps even ones divided from other traffic?)

but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?

If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with.6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.

The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.

The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.

It also doesn't compare apples to apples: how many miles are the riders riding, versus the car drivers, and what is the accident rate per-mile?

The simple fact is that bicycling (as much as I love it) is horrendously dangerous in urban areas, and the reason is cars (and even worse, SUVs). All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).

If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.

Given the speed and travelled distance difference between cars and bicycles maybe per-hour accidents would be a better metric.

Thumbs up for separating bikes from everything else, cars and pedestrians. Bike lanes on sidewalks in city centers are slow and dangerous because of pedestrians. I always prefer to share the road with cars: they're more predictable and I get home sooner.

Given the speed and travelled distance difference between cars and bicycles maybe per-hour accidents would be a better metric.

Accidents-per-person-journey is probably best (or its reciprocal if you like larger numbers), as that most closely matches the likelihood of someone having an accident, given that the profile of time spent in different vehicles is different. It even handles how to compare with various kinds of mass transit schemes. You can then think in terms of "how likely am I to get seriously injured when going from home to work if I travel by bicycle?" which is actually a useful question (and comparable to "... if I travel by car?" by even not too statistically-sophisticated people).

Absolutely. Bike lanes on regular roads are barely better than nothing. Build no-car paths on the opposite side of Armco. But suburban/rural moderate-to-lightly traveled roads around me are where most of the fatalities occur. Cyclists frequently survive being hit by SUVs and pickups moving less than 25mph, but less often for 50+mph.

Yes, but even there, why would I want to risk my health getting hit by an SUV moving less than 25mph? I might have a lower chance of death, but I can surely expect serious injuries, a hospital stay, and who knows what kind of maiming, plus later arthritis and other complications from having broken bones. Just having a higher survival rate isn't enough to make cycling an attractive proposition if there's still lots of car/bike collisions.

The simple fact is that bicycling (as much as I love it) is horrendously dangerous in urban areas, and the reason is cars (and even worse, SUVs). All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).

If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.

Actually, while this seems intuitively obvious, a lot of research and testing indicates that it's the opposite of what is true. There's a Dutch city planner/traffic engineer by the last name of Monderman who did some fascinating work on the topic, re-engineering a Dutch village in the opposite way. What resulted was a dramatic drop in both the number and severity of accidents...of all forms. Instead of trying to calm traffic, separate cars and pedestrians/bikes from each other and provide tons of stop signs and other signage, he did the opposite. There's a surprisingly enjoyable book called "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do" that I recommend for anyone who drives a lot. I know, a book about traffic...must be insanely boring, right? It's actually quite good, both an entertaining read and full of solid academic rigor. Monderman himself is a riot. He points out, while driving towards a bridge, a sign that says it's a bridge. He asks if anyone really needs a sign to know that they're seeing a bridge. "Treat people like idiots, and they will behave as such," he points out. I agree.

Google is your friend, it can show you every last killed and injured biker.

No it cannot possibly show you every last injured cyclist. Killed I could believe but definitely not injured because most cycling injuries never get reported including those that involve cars. I've been in numerous cycling accidents myself of which *maybe* one may have been documented somewhere because it required sutures. I've been in and around competitive cycling my entire life (father races) and I assure you that very few bicycle accidents are ever reported to the police much less the NHTSA.

I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car. Getting hit from behind by a car was 2% of injuries (but a major cause of death) while getting hit by the asshole riding against traffic was 33%.

Listen to this and believe it. I have lived in Key West since 1990 and sold my last fuel burner in 1995. I have a "grocery getter" bike with big baskets and a lean and fast bike for getting somewhere quickly or running my dog. I stop at traffic lights and stop signs, obey one way streets and respect car traffic while not expecting the same in return. However, I am in the minority and am fully aware of that.

Most bicyclists do not think that road rules apply to them whether they are tourists or locals. Looking both ways when crossing a one way street has saved me from many accidents. Drivers don't see you, especially when they are talking on their phones. Bike lanes are not respected. It is up to you as a cyclist to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.

Having driven motorcycles for many years prior to moving here I already had this mind set and it helped a great deal.

My cycling experience in Colorado has been the same (ditched my car in 2010). I frequently have cars shocked that I actually stopped at a stop sign when I am commuting to work, because all of the drivers here are so used to most cyclists blowing through them without stopping. I have also had far more close calls on the biking only trails in town with people not paying attention while riding than on the streets. The right mindset for riding is "being right doesn't bring you back" so always assume all other vehicles are going to do something dangerous when on the road.

It is up to you... to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.

This is the only rule you need to live by to drive, cycle, run, walk, or travel any road safely. Travel under the expectation that you need to anticipate someone else's dumb move and you will find yourself prepared for the majority of situations (note that I didn't say all of them, because someone out there will find a way to blow your mind one day).

It's also a bit regional maybe. If you head to suburban or rural areas cyclists tend to be more conservative with their riding habits, but in cities they can be downright arrogant. Also areas near to universities or colleges have an increase in bad cycling habits.

For a long time (maybe still occuring) there is one road on Stanford land where the bikes will ride side by side blocking the entire lane while ignoring the bike lanes (most of them are probably not students). This is a road with a lot of auto t

On the other hand, there are still about 80.000 people (out of 17.000.000 inhabitants; ~0,5%) requiring immediate medical care yearly due to accidents on their bicycle (although many of them are older people breaking their hip):http://www.veiligheid.nl/cijfers/fietsongevallen-algemeen [veiligheid.nl] (Dutch)

While I'm sure it's a good book I don't think you summary is right in anyway. First of all most bicycle accidents leading to serisou injury (at least a day in hospital) happen only to the cyclist, with no one else involved. The biggest cause of accidents is bad infrastructure and maintainance, i.e. gravel on the bicycle lane, or other surprises such as tight curves .

It's of course possible that things are completely different here in Sweden, and it's also possible to blame this on the cyclist saying that bad judgement is the cause of these accidents, but you have to put it in a perspective you do not have the same types of problems in car lanes, no one would dig a hole in the middle of the road without giving motorist lots of warning and protection. This happens quite often in bicycle infrastructure.

These are stats from Sweden [www.vti.se]27% can be related to operation and maintenance20% to road design27% to cyclist-bicycle interaction15% to the behaviour and state of the cyclist,11% to the interaction of the cyclist with other road users

...effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.

This is incorrect. In any study regarding bike-car collisions I have seen, the overwhelming majority of them are caused by motorist negligence. Take a look at this study by the City of Toronto based on police reports:

It shows something like @83% of bike-car collisions were caused by the motorist, not the cyclist. This basic finding has been replicated in many other cities as well. I can't find the link at the moment, but IIRC it was like 90%+ caused by motorists in NYC.

I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.

Not to defend idiot drivers, because there are plenty of them around, but cyclists can be diff

I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.

First off, "the car" doesn't do anything. The driver does. You're attributing behavior to an inanimate object, something I see people do constantly.

Second: several decades of research proves your claim wrong. Most collisions are due to the driver doing something illegal, sometimes simply failing to yield because they think they have right-of-way over someone on a bicycle.

The list goes on. Keep in mind that studies which are based off police reports that aren't carefully analyzed are typically faulty because police very often incorrectly side with motorists, don't interview cyclists, witness statements are wrong, etc. It's common to review a report, see obvious signs that the motorist did something illegal, and police do not cite them, and often cite the cyclist.

It should make you stop and think to consider that many cyclists ride with helmet cameras. There's a reason - drivers lie, police don't believe us (or very often we're incapacitated or otherwise unable to defend ourselves), and witnesses are discriminatory towards cyclists or simply don't understand traffic laws or think they saw what they didn't.

Okay, when I did an analysis of US stats last year, I found that cyclists are:

1% of traffic2% of traffic injuries and fatalities

You're more likely to get seriously hurt when you get into an accident on a bike. That's just obvious, since you're cruising around in nothing but skintanium. There's no way -- none -- that a bike is going to come out ahead in a collision with a motorized vehicle. A fight with someone that's got 20 pounds on you is one-sided, so imagine a fight against someone that's got 2 tons on you and is made out of steel. This is why, when I bike, I assume that I never ever, under any circumstances ever, ever think that I have the right of way. A bike never has the right of way. I say this because of the laws of physics -- if a delivery van blows a stop sign and t-bones you, he can hose down his van and get back to work tomorrow. If you're really, really lucky and you have good medical care, you might be able to pee on your own in a couple of months. So whose fault is it? Who cares? As the cyclist, you're always "all in" when you're biking, so you always assume that every accident is your fault.

I started biking to school 17 years and 90 pounds ago. I bike to work 4/5 days a week unless it's snowing. (I don't bike when it's snowing; it's too dangerous with the cars out there, and on Thursdays I jog in.) In all that time, I've been hit one time. A woman on a road bike that was drafting behind me. A car was approaching the intersection (they have a stop) but they were approaching a little too fast for my liking. I hit my brakes, and they're tuned to stop my bike from full speed to stopped in about 2 meters. She couldn't stop nearly that well, and she rear-ended me. She tacoed her wheel and broke one of my rear lights. A lot of close calls, drivers that don't pay attention, but I pay enough attention for both of us.

Ironically, I do have a spinal injury, but I was hours away from the closest car when I got it.

I'm cool with bicycles except in the mornings when everyone is trying to get to work....you're passing someone, and BANG, you have to hit the brakes when you see a damned bike in the road with heavy traffic slowing shit down, when you're trying to make it to work.

I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.

I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.

I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.

You mean it's not safe to be on the road with YOU.

Waaah waaah waaaah. YOU need to get to work, so the cyclist is supposed to get out of YOUR way?

Waaah waaah waaaah. YOU need to get to work, so the cyclist is supposed to get out of YOUR way?

Seems like YOU are the problem.

It isn't just me...its everyone on the road in a car driving along with ME....

I've seen other cars driving in other lane almost clock a couple of bicyclists more than a few times on busy roads in the morning, I have actually cringed a couple of time expecting a *splat*.....but they slammed the brakes in time or was able to swe

Motorbikes are four times as dangerous (fatalities per km) in the UK than bicycles. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case in the US. (Unless, perhaps, cycling is significantly more dangerous compared to here.)

I'm cool with bicycles except in the mornings when everyone is trying to get to work....you're passing someone, and BANG, you have to hit the brakes when you see a damned bike in the road with heavy traffic slowing shit down, when you're trying to make it to work.

What a coincidence, I'm cool with cars except when I'm trying to bike to work. I'm biking along a road, staying as far to the right as I safely can (avoiding broken road edges, parked car doors, etc), and suddenly *BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me. Cars have their place and all, but I'm just trying to get to work, can't the car drivers leave earlier or later in the day?

I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.

Perhaps you're driving too fast for conditions if you've "almost killed a few". Speed limits are *maximums", driving below the speed limit when conditions warrant it is always legal. Another option would be to pull off the road and wait until conditions improve to the point where you can see safely - a good rule of thumb is that if you can't see a human shaped object on the road, then you can't see well enough to drive.

I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.

You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations). Trust me, cyclists would like more bike lanes too, but car drivers whine about loss of lanes and/or parking everytime one is contemplated.

I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.

You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations).

Whenever I see a bicyclist say those words, he almost never follows them with "and the same responsibilities to obey the law". It's always in the context that bicyclists want to be treated by drivers as the law says they must, but them following the vehicular laws isn't important.

You say "*BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me" during a commute to work on city streets. So? There's a car two feet behind that car, and another one two feet behind him. It's called "rush hour", or in some smaller town, "rush minute". Part of commuting and quite legal.

You in particular may be very fastidious in obeying traffic signals and rules of the road, but since almost none of the riders I come across in this town bother with such trivialities it is impossible not to paint the entire riding population with the same brush.
In fact, to keep from killing many of your compatriots, it is necessary to assume they are going to ignore the law. A bike approaching the street you are on from a side street with a stop sign? Assume he isn't going to, assume he's going to actually speed up to challenge you for the right of way, and then he's going to either lay over in a sharp turn or side-step into the crosswalk to try to invoke the pedestrian in a crosswalk laws on you.

You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations).

Whenever I see a bicyclist say those words, he almost never follows them with "and the same responsibilities to obey the law". It's always in the context that bicyclists want to be treated by drivers as the law says they must, but them following the vehicular laws isn't important.

If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.

You say "*BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me" during a commute to work on city streets. So? There's a car two feet behind that car, and another one two feet behind him. It's called "rush hour", or in some smaller town, "rush minute". Part of commuting and quite legal.

If you've got cars stacked up 2 feet from each other, then you're in stop and go traffic that's moving at a crawl - bikes aren't slowing you down, they are reducing the number of cars in front of you.

You in particular may be very fastidious in obeying traffic signals and rules of the road, but since almost none of the riders I come across in this town bother with such trivialities it is impossible not to paint the entire riding population with the same brush.

Yes, some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't. Yet we all have to share the same roads.

In fact, to keep from killing many of your compatriots, it is necessary to assume they are going to ignore the law. A bike approaching the street you are on from a side street with a stop sign? Assume he isn't going to, assume he's going to actually speed up to challenge you for the right of way, and then he's going to either lay over in a sharp turn or side-step into the crosswalk to try to invoke the pedestrian in a crosswalk laws on you.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws.

I'm good with sharing the road, and would love for cities to be more bike friendly. I might do some bike commuting myself if that were the case. That said, you said something which I just have to comment on.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws.

Seriously, dude? It's a consequences issue. If the cyclist doesn't respect the right of way, and I expected him to, that's a hurt cyclist, potentially dead. If I assume the cyclist isn't going to respect the right of way and slow down until I'm sure of what he's going to do, I've inconvenienced me a

I'm driving at a speed that is safe for the automobile traffic around me....most of us are.

That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.

We aren't expecting to have to slow quickly or stop for a slow moving, non-motorized vehicle suddenly appearing in the middle of the road.

I wouldn't lump all drivers in with yourself, not all drivers have such little control of their vehicle they fear running over cyclists.

Face it...the roads are built and meant for motorized vehicles. It is the smaller bicycles that have to be on the lookout and use judgement on when it is save to ride and on what roads.

Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.

You can go on and on all you want on laws and insurance, etc....but what good is that going to do for you when racked up in the hospital for months, and that's even if you survive a duel with a 3000+ lbs metal vehicle going about 3-4x as fast as you are?

Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.

Hopefully it's just a temporary problem and self-driving cars will make car-bike collisions much less common.

That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.

So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.

Do you think that a speed necessary to avoid colliding with a stationary object on the road means driving at zero mph?

All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.

So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?

Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.

Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.

Sorry, sometimes I assume that others have the same access to Google that I do:

Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.

And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended.

You even admit that your argument makes no sense, yet you still use it? As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.

After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.

Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.

Well no, sorry that you misunderstood me, I don't think that drivers should be banned from roa

So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car?That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..

How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as theycan go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?

And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other roadusers? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..

The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.

Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road?Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share?Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?

Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.

Dude, I've read most of your responses. You do realize you assert that drivers should change the time of day they drive to avoid hitting some jackass cycling in the middle of the road?

Of course, not, I'm saying that if a driver can't see well enough to spot a cyclist in the road, then he needs to slow down enough to where he *can* see something as large as a human in the road and not run over it.

It's not just bikes that could be in the road, it could be a pedestrian, a dog, a cow, or a stalled car - if you can't see well enough to drive, then why are you driving?

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

You know how fucking entitled that makes you sound? I hate cyclists, and I think they should be illegal on all roads. Two people I know (was not close to them) were hit from behind by a driver in a 45 MPH zone. The sun blinded him. It was at sunset. They were side-by-side on a busy city road, riding into the sun, in 45 MPH traffic, taking up the entire lane.

Care to post the details of the accident? On a busy city road it's even more likely that ther

When using a bicycle for transportation rather than recreation, it's injuries per mile that is informative. The office is X miles away. The time it takes to get there will depend on my choice of transportation but the distance is constant.

Indeed. In two decades of driving, I have had precisely zero driving-related injuries of any kind. (And in four decades of being driven or driving myself, I have been in precisely two accidents, neither involving injury to myself, and only one involving injuries to anybody -- all of which were extremely minor compared to those this single biker has received.)

On the other hand, the pollution from the car you drove for 20 years amounts to how much exactly?The conceptual problem with this approach is that we're thinking egocentrically while completely disregarding the indirect effects of our behavior.

I've been biking for 15 years regularly (and irregularly for 10 years before that) and had zero incidents but quite a few close calls, all due to motorists not paying attention to what's around them. But I admit I had zero incidents because I bike very, very carefully

If all cyclists did was inconvenience motorists by "sharing" the road, either by following traffic laws or being a little fast and loose with those laws, that is one thing. But I see cyclists not regarding any need to grant right-of-way to pedestrians.

I am driving in a congested city area with a cyclist tailgating me. A pedestrian is not yet in the cross walk but showing signs of entering a marked cross walk so I start to slow down. Pedestrian enters the walk, the cyclist pulls out from behind me to pa

Depends. Cycling can be very safe: get a big, comfortable city bike, stick to bicycle lanes, ride at about 15 mph or less, wear a helmet, stop at all intersections and generally coast with the hand on the brake. I can pretty much guarantee no accidents - at least, no accidents that you could have avoided. You still run the risk of getting run over by an idiot who isn't paying attention, but the risk at that point is similar to being a pedestrian.

Only? That sounds like proof of concept rather than a proof of overstatement.

It is only proof that America as a whole, of which NYC is a part of (contrary to popular opinion, who think it is America), has a shockingly low regard for bikers. Take for example, how the Dutch [youtube.com] handle bicycling -- they have not just dedicated lanes, but dedicated traffic signals. Bikes are an integrated part of their public transportation system. In the United States, it's viewed as "something children do, or people who haven't grown up." In other words, you're viewed as immature and/or poor if you ride a bike, not environmentally conscious, fiscally prudent, or body smart.

Now I live in the midwest, and several of our cities, to little fanfare, have been adopting the dutch approach. In Chicago, Minneapolis, and other cities, we are creating dedicated bike lanes and signals. Minneapolis in particular has an extensive network of inter-city bike trails which it maintains year round. For those who forget, Minneapolis is located at the same lat/long as Moscow, and it regularly gets snowfall of several feet come high winter. Chicago's trains have been installing bike racks in the cars and on buses, though they are seen less than elsewhere during the cold season. New York, for all its bluster about this, barely registers on the scale of bike-friendliness; cyclists there might as well be armed mad-max style and shooting at motorists for as much hostility there is between the two groups, whereas in the midwest, and even along the West coast in places like San Francisco, motorists are much more tolerant of cyclists.

This is starting to change as the millenials come into the workforce and seem decidedly uninterested in owning their own car. I'm not entirely sure why this is happening, because unlike Europe, the population density of America is such that owning a car is pretty much a necessity -- most people who own bikes also own, or at least have access to, a car or other form of motorized transportation. Even in Europe, scooters are a common sight, whereas around here, they're rare indeed.

I guess my point is that while culture plays a role, the bigger hinderance to mass transit and cycling both in the United States is population density. We are really spread out. You could fit several Western Europes into the US, and we don't have nearly as many people per mile as most European countries. The other part of this is that our city's infrastructure has never been flat out replaced. Europe's has -- it was called WWII, when most of their infrastructure was blown up. Your welcome by the way -- we paid for fixing a lot of that. We've never done the same here -- our roads were never reimagined to include bikes, or mini-vehicles, etc. Our urban sprawl continues unabated. And this is, ultimately, why we have so many problems; We're too spread out, and infrastructure costs too damn much, which is why it's only basic. We should have had bullet trains and such a long time ago; But the maintenance costs of all this suburban landscape saps away our budget. And it makes cycling a losing proposition -- the average road trip is 15 miles in the midwest. That's 30 miles a day if you want to go by bike. And considering that over 1/3rd of our citizens are clinically obese... I don't know that even half of Americans could survive a 30 mile bike ride.

Exactly. One of the cities cited in the article is NYC; I live right next to Manhattan and visit frequently, and it's one of the least bike-friendly cities I've ever seen. Even in the few places where there's bike lanes, it's in no way safe, because of the crazy car drivers (esp. taxis). I even saw a biker hit by a taxi as soon as I got out of the bus station one day; the taxi didn't even stop. You have to be extremely reckless or insane to ride a bike in this crazy city.

Many of us are quite aware that there are laws. In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles). In most states, bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs, traffic signals, and other traffic control devices. They should ride with traffic--not against it--and exercise reasonable road safety.

Unfortunately, most people on bicycles are not the many of us; they are the many blunt dunderheads who got a $50 bike at Wal-Mart that will probably fall apart one day when jumping a ramp. They don't know or care about the law. Some of them think salmoning is safe and will ride blissfully head-on toward high-speed traffic. As a result, you have all of these retarded people running through intersections into traffic; I've seen a guy on a fixed gear bike run through a red light and turn left through oncoming left-turn traffic, just weaving between close-packed moving cars.

Think about how dangerous cars would be if we didn't train people to drive them and didn't issue tickets to lawbreakers. You run traffic signals, drive down the wrong side of the road, and generally behave unsafely on a bicycle? The police don't do shit. Legally they're empowered to fine you and even take away your fucking driver's license--they don't have direct recourse for a bicycle, but they can eventually argue that the bicycle is an enabler and legally take possession of it. Some of these people could be fined out of existence or outright arrested for their dangerous behavior--you think running through a traffic signal and swerving through dense moving traffic isn't arrest-worthy? Someone could have panicked and swerved his car straight into the other oncoming traffic to try to evade the cyclist, or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that.

As an avid rider, I think the most dangerous part of biking are all those people that follow rules for pedestrians when it suits them and rules for road traffic when it suits them. As a driver, I'm 5x more cautious with a biker around than a pedestrian, because they are so unpredictable and impatient.

As a driver, I'm 5x more cautious with a biker around than a pedestrian, because they are so unpredictable and impatient.

As a driver in a college town, I consider pedestrians the one unpredictable hazard. They will stand on the corner looking at you approach until you can't stop and then they'll step into the crosswalk. Or they'll step into the crosswalk while you are a block away and wait to cross until you are forced to stop for them. Or they'll be walking parallel to the street as if they're going straight ahead and then do a quick 90 degree turn to step into the crosswalk in front of you. They'll cross halfway and then

The truth of the matter is that most dangers to bicyclists are drivers who other do not understand the laws when it comes to bicycles, or flagrantly disregard them out of spite. (Notice how this is the exact opposite of what you said. Fancy that.) I'll give an example.

Drivers refuse to share space designated for bike lanes. Often at a stop or a turn, the bike lane merges with the regular lane, or else cars are allowed to turn right using the bi

Think about how dangerous cars would be if we didn't train people to drive them and didn't issue tickets to lawbreakers. You run traffic signals, drive down the wrong side of the road, and generally behave unsafely on a bicycle? The police don't do shit. Legally they're empowered to fine you and even take away your fucking driver's license--they don't have direct recourse for a bicycle, but they can eventually argue that the bicycle is an enabler and legally take possession of it. Some of these people could be fined out of existence or outright arrested for their dangerous behavior--you think running through a traffic signal and swerving through dense moving traffic isn't arrest-worthy? Someone could have panicked and swerved his car straight into the other oncoming traffic to try to evade the cyclist, or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that.

Jeez, enough of the bikes don't stop at stop signs bullshit!

The most dangerous time that you in a bike is when you are still. When you are still waiting for a light or at a stop, when something awful is about to happen, you can't get out of the way. When you are moving, you can swerve out of the way or do something. When you're still, you can just watch and pray.

I was waiting at a stop sign and the driver turned left right into me. I couldn't do anything to get out of the way. I was lucky that the SUV j

No, you have the fewest risk contingencies when you are still. That doesn't mean you have the lowest risk; it means you don't have any answers for "what if...".

Think of it this way: Running through a stop sign into a blind intersection puts you at risk of being run over by a car. 1 in 10 times, you are at risk for being run over by a car. You can swerve out of the way 99 out of 100 times. That means 1 in 1000 times, you will get hit by a car running stop signs. (Numbers made up)

Now, standing at stop signs, cars will collide with you 1 in 2,600 times. You can only evade this 1 out of 10 times. That means you have a 9 in 26,000 chance of getting hit, or 1 in 2889 chance.

In the first situation, you run a higher probability risk but you have a good risk-reducing contingency (ability to take action). In the second, you run a lower probability risk but have very poor risk-reducing contingency. The numbers I gave shows that the lower probability is actually a lower risk than the higher probability with contingency in this imaginary case.

My numbers are made up. You however simply stated a lack of contingency without any sort of consideration for risk probability: you predicate that having a contingency always equates to lower risk. I have shown that in principle this is wrong, and thus that you have shown nothing except that there are different risks and some have better contingencies; you have not shown whether one overall risk is bigger than the other.

Those numbers you made up is dependent on the bike rider, the road structure, route, weather and pretty much everything you can think of.

You also do realize that people are stopped at a light or intersection far shorter than they are moving. That small period where you in a road still with moving cars could have higher probability and I'm making a reasonable argument about that.

I bicycled to work for a year. I bicycled everywhere for a year. I also drive, and ride light rail. I've been on both ends of this. In a year's time with 70% of my transportation being by bicycle (I actually tallied up my total gasoline MPG at 288mpg combined when factoring in my bike with my car), I've been threatened by cars while stationary 0 times. In that same time, I nearly smashed a black guy who ran a red light on his bicycle at night while wearing dark clothes on an unlit street; I nearly turned a white kid into a speed bump when he came the wrong way down a street and just appeared from behind a building and straight in front of my car (this is a no-lawn situation: the sidewalk is against the building and the street); I've observed other cyclists nearly getting creamed on half a dozen occasions while I was waiting at a signal for busy traffic; and so on.

Your anecdotal experience does not match my anecdotal experience. I was never in any danger narrowly averted by a heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering; I have been suddenly placed in situations where my heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering have saved others from becoming speed tables, and I've observed other drivers doing the same.

If you are still, you can't do any heroic application of steering. When cars are still and bike hits them, nothing happens. When

In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles).

The reason is because bicycles don't necessary weight enough to trigger traffic light sensors. I suppose Idaho lawmakers thinks that motorcycles do. And no reason as a result to do anything special for convertibles.

As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that you're full of it, and engaging in thinking/logic that's a cousin to the basic logic employed by racists. You cite some guy riding extremely dangerously as an example of how everyone rides. You rely on an anecdote, which is not evidence. And then you state that this behavior is what causes all/most injuries, which is victim-blaming.

Turns out, there's plenty of studies on this subject, from all across the world, using various methods. They typically find between 66% and 90% of collisions are the fault of motorists, and the cyclist was doing nothing wrong or improper when they were hit. The top causes of injuries in most cities are doorings (which in many places is automatically the door-openers fault, even if it's not specifically codified into law, as virtually all jurisdictions make opening a door into the path of "traffic" illegal), right hooks (driver passes you and then immediately slows/turns, cutting you off and blocking your path), and left-crosses (left turn in front of you, illegally failing to yield to oncoming traffic.) None are the cyclist's fault.

The reason you're engaging in this victim-blaming is for a psychological self-defense mechanism. See, it's scary when a cyclist gets hit or killed, especially if they weren't doing anything wrong. That means it could happen to you. In order to protect yourself from that danger mentally, you see yourself as superior. "I ride safely." "I follow all the laws." "I have really bright lights." "I'm not riding a cheap bike, mine's better and well-maintained." Tada! You now ride proudly and feeling "safe."

Well, guess what? I follow the law. I have years of experience riding in the city. I know all the protect-yourself techniques. I have great lights. I ride a really nice bike with great disc brakes and it's well maintained. I've still been hit.

or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that

The officer would ticket the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended the other for failing to follow at a safe distance. Nice try.

It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride.

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. You used it to support your claim that all cyclists are law-breaking, reckless, and cause their own injuries.

Cyclists are not reckless compared to anyone else using the road, and their behavior is substantially less reckless given that when they commit the same traffic infractions, they only endanger themselves. NYC counts cyclist-on-ped injuries and they account for less than 1% of total pedestrian injuri

In a city? No. The sort of accidents you're likely to have in urban cycling leave the risk of blunt-force trauma to the head. Serious cyclist who propose helmet-free cycling aren't talking about low speed urban cycling, they're talking about cycling on high-speed out-of-town roads, or high speed cycling on open roads downhill. There is an argument that in a high speed collision, the helmet increases the risk of torsional injury to the neck: if your head is in contact with a rough surface (eg a road) during

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example [nih.gov])

Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets. Just the same, we could make drivers wear helmets just like race car drivers do. That would actually prevent a huge number of deaths. But we don't. So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?

As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight. Fewer cyclists means drivers are less likely to expect them. In addition, there is evidence that cyclists wearing helments engage in riskier behavior as a form of risk-compensation.

I would imagine that cyclists are singled out because:
a) many of them are children so the manufacturers can play the "think of the children" card
b) once laws are passed the manufacturers have a built in customer base that MUST purchase from them
c) to many people cycling is something new and different. Walking is something everyone does - so it's harder to convince them they've been doing it wrong

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example [nih.gov])

You need to do some real research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness [wikipedia.org]
Its referenced. There have been many studies since the 1980's that have demonstrated the same results.
Helmets are quite effective at reducing or stopping brain injury completely. The big problem is that a helmet is good for one impact only, this is true for motorcycle helmets as well. As with most car problems, bike problems come from people not taking care of their equipment.

As an additional point, helmet laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight..

Bicycle helmets prevent skull fracture from impacts that would rupture the braincase through blunt trauma. They don't prevent brain damage (concussion); but I'm always on neuroprotectives and will take a 7mg sublingual dose of Noopept before a ride (I have 5g of powder) for additional resistance to brain damage from severe blunt trauma, chemical pressure (i.e. massive amounts of alcohol), and high-voltage electroshock across the skull. It'll take a lot more to do damage and I take a lot less damage.

Unlike Andy Pruitt, I would not consider three broken bones in 40 years to be "safe". I have been cycling for about that long, but no more than a couple thousand miles per year on average, and I have never broken a bone, not cycling, not in any other activity - and my activities include flying (powered and unpowered craft), motorcycles, white water kayaking, and mocking senior management.

The road near my house is like Mecca for cyclists. Creek Rd (Old Rte 100) along the Brandywine Creek in Chester County, PA. It is beautiful, but it has got to be the most dangerous road I could imagine for cyclists.

1. It is CURVY and at the speed limit, you barely have enough time to see what is around the bend in time to stop if there is something stopped (or slow, like a cyclist)2. There is NO shoulder to speak of. It's an old PA road, which means it has been worn down over the centuries until the r

Having seen a number of near-misses in London, no way would I cycle there. The main arteries are simply scary, the minor roads take too long and cross the main ones too frequently. Maybe the Greenway would make sense if both ends of the journey are in its vicinity.

Most drivers treat cyclists like pests (and in fairness, I see a lot of cyclists who completely ignore all traffic rules and deserve the reputation).

Where I live, we've had the buses kill cyclists because the bike lane and the bus lane co-exist and the bus drivers don't look.

I gave up on any notion of cycling on the same road as cars 15+ years ago. Unless you have an entire network of bike lanes which are physically separated from the cars (and even those tend to be spotty), I wouldn't consider cycling on city streets to be even remotely safe.

I don't trust most drivers while I'm in a car, being exposed on a bicycle? No way in hell I'd be willing to do that anymore.

Where I live, we've had the buses kill cyclists because the bike lane and the bus lane co-exist and the bus drivers don't look.

I compare cycling with buses to boating with giant whales. If a whale knows you're there, it won't hit you (nursing mothers excepted), but if it can't see you, it could obliterate your vessel unwittingly with a flick of its tail. Always be mindful of the huge blindspots on a bus, and if you're overtaking a stopped bus, pull out beyond its blindspot with several bike-lengths to spare in case he pulls out before he sees you.

A lot of the issues you are addressing stem from the fact that roads are no longer set up for cyclists. Cyclists are legal road users. They are entitled to be on the roads. However the stop signals simply do not work for cyclists. A bicycle will not trigger the sensors under the road. Therefore it is necessary to become a pedestrian at that time which is utterly ridiculous. Hence cyclists are "encouraged" to ignore signals. Or they are "encouraged" to use the sidewalks.

Where I live (Vancouver, Canada) there's been a multi-year program to install bike lanes throughout the city. It's caused a lot of tension between drivers and cyclists because there's a sense amongst drivers (and pedestrians too, for that matter) that we're spending millions of tax dollars catering to a group who a) don't follow the rules of the road and b) feel that the rules don't apply to them. They ride fixie bikes with no brakes and no bells. They blow through crosswalks, shouting and terrifying grannies. They ride at night dressed in black with no lights and then shout at me when I nearly run them over after they blow through a stop sign. They ride on sidewalks right next to bike lanes - And there's zero enforcement for any of this, and none of the bike advocacy groups seem willing to shame the bad apples.

1) require a drivers license to cycle on city streets2) require cyclists to obey all traffic laws (this is already true in many jurisdictions)3) disallow cyclists (and motorcycles) from weaving between lanes to move ahead in traffic. Require them to use lanes in the same manner as other vehicles (you don't see 2 smart cars trying to share one lane of traffic)4) enforce #1, #2 and #3 as aggressivley with cyclists as with automobiles, with the same penalties

I have seen more pedestrians run down (or nearly run down) by cyclists running red lights, weaving in and out of slow moving traffic, transitioning from using the streets to using pedestrian crosswalks to thwart lights or make lefts from a right hand lane across traffic. I cannot count the number of times I've seen aggressive cyclists in New York and Chicago weave through cars, use the wrong side of the road (!!!), etc. and then get upset when someone nearly knocks them over because they weren't seen being where they didn't belong.

If you require a level of competence (driver's license), require all vehicles using the roads to abide by the same laws (and enforce equally, with equal consequences), you'd go a long way toward improving cycling safety.

All of those requirements are easily gotten around just by riding on the sidewalk. That's what they do here.

More interesting are some towns in Europe that are eliminating sidewalks and all the extraneous traffic control signs and pavement markers. Apparently with all the distractions gone and everyone on feet and wheels sharing the same space there's a lot more paying of attention and a lot fewer accidents.

I lived in Philly til midway through my thirties. I rode a bike a *lot* - commuting, and, in fact, about 9 months as a bike messenger. No helmet.

I went down three times, and limped away all of them. Scraped hand. Once was due to a very bad seam in the street itself. Back then, *no* *one* wore a helmet.

Of course, back there, adults were supposed to ride in the street, not on the sidewalk, and in the street, you are suppsed to obey traffic laws like any other vehicle. If you ride your bike the way some self-proclaimed CotU (Centers of the Universe) drive their oversized, gas-guzzling SUVs, and think stopping for lights or stop signs is for weenies, well, there's a phrase for that:: think of it as evolution in action.

Pick a safe route at an off-peak time, and you'll be all right. And don't be hard when the roads are slick--take the bus.

I've bike-commuted for about 9 years now and it has worked out beautifully.

Route planning is everything. I'll ride 25% further just to get the benefit of a lower traffic route or a wide shoulder. Timing is also key. In some places, half an hour can make the difference between peaceful solitude and rush hour madness.

It's probably safer than watching TV. You don't get diabetes, obesity and coronary artery disease from cycling. If cycling gets you off the couch, do it. Hiking gets me off the couch. I don't worry about stumbling over a rock or yep... getting hit by a mountain biker. I worry about my mid-section getting flabby. Statistically, it's far more likely to kill me.

I used to cycle. I didn't mind the 25 mph city streets, as long as they were wide enough to avoid car door openings. I hated faster roads. Braddock and Ox road area of Fairfax County, VA was the worst. I road on Braddock, and a driver yelled at me. I road on the sidewalk next to Ox, and a guy mowing his lawn yelled at me for riding where only pedestrians are supposed to be. Technically he was right, but my life was more important to me than your stupid law. I was not about to take my life into my hands and ride on the side of Ox road there. I see a lot more road riders in California where I live now, but I really don't want to join them. I could see myself cruising the El Camino and the little Main Streets on the Peninsula though. El Camino is 35 mph but the traffic is so bad it goes slower a lot. That's about the fastest road I'd ever want to be on. San Francisco? It's a madhouse. Fuggedaboutit. I'll see you on a mountain side, walking to get fresh air and exercise.

This is of course a complex question. Sure, cyclist are more prone to accidents and air pollution than those who commute by private car or by public transport. Then again, cycling to work is a "free" daily exercise – a benefit too often overlooked. A Danish study [jamanetwork.com] published in 2000 found that in a group of 30,000 randomly selected individuals, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did – even after adjusting for other risk factors. So considering the overall effect, it seems that cycling is actually safer than not cycling, probably due to its positive effect on your physical fitness.

In The Netherlands. Nobody wears a helmet, with a few exception for very young kids (Always flanked and shielded by a overly concerned parent.)

I could show a graph that nicely shows that helmets are correlated with higher death rates. (No the helmet doesn't kill, its because helmets are worn in countries with low separation of slow cyclists and fast cars)There is also a correlation between more helmets (by law) leading to LESS cyclers. Its a burden.

Seperation of slow and fast traffic is BY FAR the biggest factor here. Then also consider the health benefit of the exercise.

Regular exercise will make you more healthy and prolong your life! So, on bike lanes, Cycling is Super Awesome Safe! No helmet needed.

ps, incidents are on the rise due to old folks going faster on their electric assisted bikes.ps2 mopeds, scooters, especially those that clock 50km/h are more and more forced into the car lane in The Netherlands, the speeds fits better.ps3 Watch your juveniles, those pesky 12-18 y/o have a high incident rate. They are also likely to be offended by a helmet..

Cycling seems fairly safe to me if you wear a helmet and you choose your routes to avoid cars.

Here in Minneapolis I notice what I would call a lot of "aggressive" cyclists -- people who run traffic control devices (stop signs, lights, etc) and get dangerously close to traffic that might otherwise change speeds/lanes/turn/etc very quickly. From the cyclists I talk to, it almost seems like cycling is taking on a political component, too, which seems to contribute to aggressive cycling or at least an aggressive attitude.

The other thing that kind of amazes me are the people who INSIST on cycling on a busy through street (like Lyndale through South Minneapolis) instead of moving over just a block on either side and riding on a nearly empty residential street, like Garfield or Aldrich. Or the bike racing gear wearers who insist on riding on the parkway instead of the bike path 25 feet away, in spite of the fact that the parkway is a single lane and the parking cutouts along the parkway are pretty narrow -- if cars are parked in the cutouts there's precious little room to pass a cyclist.

As long as people insist on riding in traffic and people kind of a jerk about it, it doesn't surprise me that there are conflicts a cyclist will lose simply based on mass.

Cycling excludes many people, especially the elderly, the otherwise frail, and the uncoordinated. In the city, at least, they would be taking their lives in their hands.

It seems like an idea by the young and healthy, for the young and healthy. Which is fine, but devoting significant public resources to it seems questionable. Should cities invest in transportation programs (such as bikeshare) that many residents are physically unable to utilize?

Car accidents is one of the main causes of death in US [nsc.org], 1 in 108 (and maybe other causes in that report should be grouped in that category as are caused directly or indirectly by cars), while bicycles are 1 in 5000 (and a lot of them could be caused by cars). And those 2 are often ignored by the people that mainly fear being killed by a shark or terrorists that are 1 in several millons each.

Rarely will you find THE answer to anything. Biking is just one of the answers to some (many?) situations. Take college. I biked to pretty much every class. My crowning achievement was waking up at 8:56 before a test at 9 half way across campus and making it on time (thankfully it was downhill...and no I didn't do too well, hence being proud of just making it there on time). Sure, in the driving rain the answer isn't biking, its skipping class.

we could save 10's of thousands of lives a year by actually having real driving skill requirements and every 3 years a required road test. Most drivers are barely capable of going i na straight line. Plus it should be a LOT easier to lose your drivers license. A lot of old people are highly dangerous to others yet still have a legal drivers license.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cyclists I've seen in the last year who haven't run red lights and stop signs or otherwise ignored basic safety and traffic laws.

I will happily furnish two chairs and as much liquor as you can drink, and we'll sit at the stop sign next to my house. One block away from a school, and one block away from a heavily frequented park. In a residential historic neighborhood with home values approaching seven figures. Speed bumps on almost every street.

You chug a beer every time a car rolls through the stop sign. You down a shot every time someone blows through it without even slowing down. You take a sip when cars bottom out on the dips. Shot for people texting or talking on mobiles. Just a sip for speeding. You want to up the ante? Add a drink for failure to yield right-of-way, or honked horn.

I'll take a shot for every car that doesn't break the law in some fashion.

I'll go home in better shape than you, by far.

Everyday on my bike, someone tries to kill me. Often enough on purpose. On my bike, it's very unlikely that I'll kill or maim anyone, whether I follow the law or not. Every cyclist I've ever talked to who has been in an car/bike accident (and that's just about all of them) was following the law at the time of the accident. And the car wasn't. Guess who got injured?

So the hell with you. Cyclists rarely hurt anyone, and car drivers kill cyclists every day.

Coming from Boulder to Chicago, the difference is insane. The drivers in Chicago are, by and large, a "me first" crowd. They cut off other cars by driving in the bike lanes. Even Chicago's police regularly park and drive on bike lanes, setting an excellent example for the citizens to follow. Delivery vehicles think nothing of blocking a bike lane. But the issue doesn't end with bad drivers. The city streets are so littered with signs (business signs, parking, no parking, street sweeping, snow route, s